Antarctica's sea ice on Sept. 22, 2013. Scientists say there was more ice on the ocean then than in any time in recorded satellite history. Data came from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) sensor on Japan’s Global Change Observation Mission 1st-Water (GCOM-W1) satellite. You can see the land in dark gray and ice shelves in light gray. The yellow line represents the average distribution of sea ice between 1981 and 2000. Credit: NASA/Jesse Allen, using data from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) sensor on the Global Change Observation Mission 1st-Water (GCOM-W1) satellite.
Antarctica's sea ice on Sept. 22, 2013. Scientists say there was more ice on the ocean then than in any time in recorded satellite history. Data came from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) sensor on Japan’s Global Change Observation Mission 1st-Water (GCOM-W1) satellite. You can see the land in dark gray and ice shelves in light gray. The yellow line represents the average distribution of sea ice between 1981 and 2000. Credit: NASA/Jesse Allen, using data from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) sensor on the Global Change Observation Mission 1st-Water (GCOM-W1) satellite.

Climate, Earth, Earth Observation

Antarctic Sea Ice Takes Over More Of The Ocean Than Ever Before

31 Oct , 2013 by

Antarctica’s sea ice is creeping further out in the ocean! New data from a Japanese satellite shows that sea ice surrounding the southern continent in late September reached out over 7.51 million square miles (19.47 million square kilometers).

The extent — a slight increase over 2012’s record of 7.50 million square miles (19.44 million square km) — is the largest recorded instance of Antarctica sea ice since satellite records began, NASA said. Data was recorded using the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) sensor on the Global Change Observation Mission 1st-Water (GCOM-W1) satellite.

“While researchers continue to study the forces driving the growth in sea ice extent, it is well understood that multiple factors—including the geography of Antarctica, the region’s winds, as well as air and ocean temperatures—all affect the ice,” NASA stated.

Update — see below for a more detailed description of why this is an important clue that climate change IS happening.

“Geography and winds are thought to be especially important. Unlike the Arctic, where sea ice is confined in a basin, Antarctica is a continent surrounded by open ocean. Since its sea ice is unconfined, it is particularly sensitive to changes in the winds. As noted by the National Snow and Ice Data Center, some research has suggested that changes in Antarctic sea ice are caused in part by a strengthening of the westerly winds that flow unhindered in a circle above the Southern Ocean.”

For those thinking that increased sea ice means we can relax about climate change, this humorous video explains the difference between land ice (glaciers) and sea ice (which is generated from snow, rainfall and fresh water). It’s definitely worth four minutes of your time. The part about sea ice starts around 2:45.

UPDATE: Just to clarify:

Here’s what the graphic says: “The water around Antarctica is more fresh than it has been in previous years because of increased snow and rainfall as well as in increased contribution of fresh water from melting land ice. This fresh cold water is less dense than the warmer, saltier water below. Previously, that warm salty water would rise, melting the sea ice. But now, bcaus of the lighter fresh water on top, there is less mixing of the ocean’s layer and the surface stays cooler longer. “

And so, there is increased fresh water because of the melting land ice – due to climate change. There is a fundamental difference between sea ice and land ice. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass through snowfall. Antarctic sea ice is entirely different as it is ice which forms in salt water during the winter and almost entirely melts again in the summer.

Importantly, when land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably but other parts of the climate system are affected, like increased absorption of solar energy by the darker oceans.

See this article on SkepticalScience for additional information.

Source: NASA Earth Observatory

, , ,

By  -      
Elizabeth Howell is the senior writer at Universe Today. She also works for Space.com, Space Exploration Network, the NASA Lunar Science Institute, NASA Astrobiology Magazine and LiveScience, among others. Career highlights include watching three shuttle launches, and going on a two-week simulated Mars expedition in rural Utah. You can follow her on Twitter @howellspace or contact her at her website.



Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Kapitalist
Guest
Kapitalist
October 31, 2013 3:28 PM

This political climate panic-hate needs to stop!
Global temperatures haven’t changed at all for over a decade and a half now. Thus it is unsurprising that the ice coverage around the poles vary randomly. BTW, isn’t ice formation of the arctic ocean dominated by complex variations in the sweet water river outflows from Siberia and Canada? Antarctica has no rivers. What does it take to make the climat panic people to realize that they have been wrong? Could anyone of them mention any event which could disprove their theory? Or is it a political religion…

Jojo_1
Guest
Jojo_1
October 31, 2013 10:41 AM

You should watch Chasing Ice.

Kapitalist
Guest
Kapitalist
October 31, 2013 5:39 PM

I’m sorry if my post above is perceived “political”. This site is far to good to dig itself down into the climat dispute. There’s too much dirt in that ugly business.

Denver
Member
Denver
October 31, 2013 5:46 PM

Don’t apologize. Until there are dairy farms in Greenland and vineyards in Scotland, Norway, and Sweden, the climate hasn’t changed enough to match the medieval climate optimum, 850CE-1250CE.

Kapitalist
Guest
Kapitalist
October 31, 2013 5:56 PM

But there are many other forums where that discussion is taking place. Sad to see universetoday being dragged down into that loosing battle. Howell and Cain may have whatever political opinion they want, but it is unprofessional, and impopular (and a loosing strategy), of them to exploit this blog for that political purpose. Global warming is a political issue, not a scientific issue.

William928
Member
William928
October 31, 2013 11:35 PM

Tell the 90 percent of the ocean’s species that are wiped out due to rising temperatures that this argument is political and not scientific in nature.

GunillaBx
Guest
GunillaBx
November 1, 2013 12:59 PM

Have you heard about Topex smile Guess not…

Kapitalist
Guest
Kapitalist
November 1, 2013 1:09 PM

Has that happened, or is in another false panic scare?

William928
Member
William928
November 1, 2013 3:59 PM

Sorry, WILL be wiped out in the future. I should have been more clear.

William Benoit
Guest
William Benoit
November 1, 2013 9:36 PM

Put the kool aid down

William928
Member
William928
November 1, 2013 11:35 PM

I’m not drinking any, are you? I’m not saying species are currently dying off in the oceans, but they will IN THE FUTURE as ocean temperatures continue to rise. This temperature increase is factual, do some research; I don’t have the time to do it for you.

William Benoit
Guest
William Benoit
November 2, 2013 2:14 AM

So your a fortune teller

William Benoit
Guest
William Benoit
November 1, 2013 9:46 PM

Try naming the ones from so called global warming

William928
Member
William928
November 1, 2013 11:32 PM

Try reading my comment correctly.

David English
Guest
David English
November 1, 2013 8:53 AM

How about the countless species that have disappeared due to natural occurrences throughout the life of the Earth. Things change on our living planet.

William Benoit
Guest
William Benoit
November 1, 2013 9:35 PM

And what species are you Talking about

permanently_ad_hoc
Member
permanently_ad_hoc
October 31, 2013 6:29 PM
Global temperature – I assume you are only considering air temperature. It has not increased the past decade much, if at all. But that is taking data out of context. To put it in context and to see, for yourself, that the trend is upward, see page 27 of http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf Next, since the data for air and ocean temperature is clearly averaging upward, snow cover and glacial ice is trending downward, you will need to attack the climate change scientists. With all the time you’ve spent studying the data, you obviously know better. If you understand that you don’t know better, then the scientists must be part of a conspiracy. They must be nameless, faceless people who will… Read more »
rwayford
Guest
rwayford
October 31, 2013 6:49 PM
The context of Tree Ring Counting (and SKIPPING) Joe? “Treemometers: A new scientific scandal” “If a peer review fails in the woods… By Andrew Orlowski / Posted in “Science” 9/29/2009 “A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers. “At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC’s assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, PEER REVIEW FAILED TO PICK UP THE ERRORS. “At issue is the use of TREE RINGS as a temperature proxy, or… Read more »
permanently_ad_hoc
Member
permanently_ad_hoc
October 31, 2013 8:08 PM
Your source for the cut and paste tirade above appears to be the Register, which currently has on the front page articles about toilet plungers and Batman’s origins. Superb choice. This piece’s author writes mostly articles about smart phones. Again, excellent source for your climate information, The core of the the above claim is that climate scientists and journals are intentionally misleading us. That would, at this point, require many thousands of people to be part of a conspiracy. I work with lots of scientists every day. Many are independent and stubborn, like any cross-section of the population. They pretty much all would scream bloody murder if someone in sunglasses from the Bureau of Climate Information came in… Read more »
David English
Guest
David English
November 1, 2013 8:56 AM

I don’t think there’s much disagreement about the fact that the Earth goes through cyclic changes. What is unconscionable is that people are using it to further there own agenda…and bank account.

Aqua4U
Member
November 1, 2013 10:16 PM

Well spoken and thanks for the voice of reason and intelligence!

Kapitalist
Guest
Kapitalist
October 31, 2013 7:56 PM
That all seems extremely complicated, controversial and uncertain, Joe_de_Loe. And would the consequences of a warming really be bad, and worth the cost of lowering of human wealth by many trillions of dollars by destroying transports and energy production? Where are the scientific proofs of that? Wouldn’t warming improve agriculture and wild life? Couldn’t we, the living, continue to gradually adapt to changes, rather than to soviet-megalomanically try to mega-pyramidically politically change the climate like the Soviet bureaucrats tried with the Aral Lake= (For sure everyone of them with the best of intentions and blind belief in more power and money to their rulers as the solution)… The United Nations, which directs and funds the IPCC, is a… Read more »
Kapitalist
Guest
Kapitalist
October 31, 2013 8:15 PM

Terraforming the Earth…

permanently_ad_hoc
Member
permanently_ad_hoc
October 31, 2013 10:50 PM
Concerning consequences of global warming being better or worse for humanity in the long term, I don’t know. Would humans adapt to the changes, sure. Will it cost a lot of destruction and displacement as sea level rises? Yes. Will some species die out? Probably. Will it cost us a lot to change our energy infrastructure? Yes.. Which is worse? I don’t know and didn’t say that I did. Rather than addressing my basic point that global warming is extremely likely to be real, you chose to address a different point of your choosing. It is hard to have an actual discussion with people who are doing that. I’m not sure that I understand either of your last… Read more »
Jeffrey Boerst
Member
November 2, 2013 12:46 AM

“I don’t understand it, so since it seems complicated controversial and uncertain to ME with my limited knowledge and education in this area, it must be the same for everyone as I am the blueprint example of human knowledge and understanding”.

GunillaBx
Guest
GunillaBx
November 1, 2013 12:57 PM

When Lysenko got Stalins ear, all scientists had to play ball or face abyss. It was not a conspiracy on the part of the scientists. It was something they had to do in order to stay alive. Today, a young scientist who does not deliver what the funding agency wants, is not killed or sent to Siberia, but are stripped of funding and becomes marginalized. Yes, they do have kids and they worry about their jobs. That is why the are willing to play ball.

Listen to retired scientists. They have nothing or less to lose and can speak freely. You will be hardpressed to find anyone who are alarmed. That speaks volumes to me.

permanently_ad_hoc
Member
permanently_ad_hoc
November 1, 2013 9:00 PM
Thank-you for a response that is not a cut and paste, over-capitalized diatribe.I hadn’t though about this before. One reason that the hundred or so scientists that I know would not be willing to “play ball” and publish stuff they didn’t believe is that they don’t have to. They all have multiple sources of funding from government, private institutions and, occasionally, corporations. I think it must be important to keep the funding sources widely separated to avoid either the appearance, or fact, of scientists being under the control of any one group with an agenda. That said, I don’t perceive that the scientific community is under the sinister pressure that you describe.I’d hear hallway talk, if it were.… Read more »
Jeffrey Boerst
Member
November 2, 2013 12:48 AM

You obviously have little idea as to how scientists and research is funded.

GunillaBx
Guest
GunillaBx
November 2, 2013 6:23 AM

I have a pretty good idea since I worked as a scientist myself. We were pretty good at knowing where the winds were blowing in the political community. When we applied for grants, our boss/professor reviewd (?) our applications and added the right buzzwords. Worked like a charm smile

Aqua4U
Member
October 31, 2013 11:58 PM

Capitalism is a miserable failure and will eventually lead to the extinction of life on Earth… Distilled, it is based on greed and separating mankind from nature. Read Vandana Shiva’s book “Earth Democracy” for a clue.

There is no justice.. there’s just us!

Denver
Member
Denver
November 1, 2013 12:18 AM

Why would I read a book by someone with a made up Hippy name?

Aqua4U
Member
November 1, 2013 10:56 PM

Sorry, this woman is from India and is a scientist and physicist.. not some stoned-out hippy. So… how long have you been a racist pig?

Denver
Member
Denver
November 1, 2013 9:16 PM

Argumentum ad hominem. There was nothing “racist” about the remark. I’d say the same thing to River Phoenix or Bill Least Heat Moon (in fact I may have said it to Bill . . .)

Besides anyone who would write a book called Earth Democracy is probably more interested in assuming control of the means of production than making sure people vote.

Kapitalist
Guest
Kapitalist
November 1, 2013 1:14 PM

Capitalism is just us. Individuals free to cooperate mutually voluntarily. That’s the only system which has ever produced any kind of wealth. Compare that with the creationist visions of a super natural governmental power in some countries like Saudi and N.Korea.

CKinTX
Member
November 1, 2013 1:53 PM

With clues from drivel like Shiva’s book, you’ll never want for ignorance.

Or, toilet paper.

Aqua4U
Member
November 1, 2013 10:21 PM

Did you read the book? I will assume that you did not.. indicating that the rest of your ideas are also based on hear-say or late nite radio.

ITSRUF
Guest
ITSRUF
November 1, 2013 11:34 PM

I never read that book, and I have plenty to say. Why do only those who read a book of your choice “have something to say”?

CKinTX
Member
November 2, 2013 12:49 PM

I haven’t read Hubbard’s, Dianetics, either, but I still know he was a scam artist and his “church” is a huge fraud.

Got anything else?

William Benoit
Guest
William Benoit
November 1, 2013 9:37 PM

Your a special kind of stupid aren’t you ?

William Benoit
Guest
William Benoit
November 1, 2013 9:47 PM

If you love communism so much leave the country go try it for awhile then see how you like it

Aqua4U
Member
November 1, 2013 11:02 PM

Your innuendo is actually quite offensive…You assume ‘either/or’ and can’t see farther than that. This speaks multitudes about your intellect.

octopusmagnificens
Guest
October 31, 2013 5:17 PM

This data is unacceptable. United Nations will require the shooting down of that satellite.

William Benoit
Guest
William Benoit
November 1, 2013 9:41 PM

Amen

Aqua4U
Member
November 1, 2013 10:27 PM

Typical… if someone disagrees with you.. shoot them.

Denver
Member
Denver
October 31, 2013 5:42 PM

“The polar bears are drowning” – Al Gore – democrat, says he invented the Internet.

“The polar bears will be fine.” – Freeman Dyson – smartest man never to win the Nobel

Who ya gonna believe?

Aqua4U
Member
October 31, 2013 11:49 PM

Not you…

Denver
Member
Denver
November 1, 2013 12:16 AM

No one ask you to believe me. The quotes are facts and not subject to debate.

Aqua4U
Member
November 1, 2013 10:29 PM

Your facts are skewed to fit your belief system and not reality.

ITSRUF
Guest
ITSRUF
November 1, 2013 11:30 PM

You are allowing your preconceived biases to cloud your judgement. Just go on an say it: you would rather trust Gore.

William928
Member
William928
November 1, 2013 11:37 PM

Let’s trust the anti-science “Christian Conservatives”, right?

Denver
Member
Denver
November 1, 2013 9:12 PM

Freeman Dyson, the first President of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Conservative? My stars and garters.

Facts have a way of nibbling eco-socialist propaganda to death.

William928
Member
William928
November 1, 2013 10:14 PM

Did I mention Freeman Dyson? I have nothing but respect for his renowned work in Mathematics and Theoretical Physics and his intellect, but that doesn’t make him or anyone else an authority on the this or any other subject. Even Dyson says he hasn’t drawn any concrete opinion with regard to Climate Change. Because he tends toward the conclusion that Climate change isn’t a result of mankind’s involvement doesn’t mean this is an accepted theory. Perhaps you’d do well to research the scientific method before taking unfounded potshots at someone.

Denver
Member
Denver
November 1, 2013 10:48 PM
I’m a geologist/hydrologist . I’ve been following “climate change” since before it was announced that glaciation would return at any moment. The consensus was certain then, too. Dyson’s specialty is data synthesis. If you will read what Dyson said (Google Dyson New York Times 2008) you will find he takes exception with Mann, et. al.’s use of statistics and statistical modeling. No climate change model can take known temperatures from, say, 100 years ago and produce anything resembling the current climate. Dyson asks reasonably how the modelers can expect anyone to accept their model to accurately predict the climate of 100 years hence. There are other issues as well, not the least of which is warmer climates have… Read more »
permanently_ad_hoc
Member
permanently_ad_hoc
November 2, 2013 2:17 AM
This is well written and I will up vote you for it. Dyson’s critiques are well thought out, especially the one on “heresy” (reference 1). But you come to erroneous conclusions. I will deal with your points in turn. First, Dyson does not deny that global warming exists or is partially anthrogenic in origin, He objects to climate models that predict a specific temperature rise, arguing that advances in technology will so alter things that the models are wrong. He may well turn out to be correct, time will tell. But that does not negate the fact that the warming exists.It does not change the fact that it is reasonable to assume that it is more likely than… Read more »
GunillaBx
Guest
GunillaBx
November 1, 2013 1:01 PM

Seriously. Who do you trust? Gore or Dyson?

William928
Member
William928
November 1, 2013 10:15 PM

I trust neither, I like to think for myself. I certainly know which way you lean….

Denver
Member
Denver
November 1, 2013 10:54 PM

Lying dog of a Politician or socially aware scientist with no political ax to grind? The choice should be simple enough.

At least a rational being would be inclined to keep an open mind. And look at the sources of the propaganda while finding data points that are often, conveniently misrepresented (Mann’s hockey stick) or ignored (medieval climate optimum, Roman climate optimum).

rwayford
Guest
rwayford
October 31, 2013 6:45 PM
GW? Or AGW? re: the Antarctic, the most significant thing about AGW is man’s reduction of the Ozone Hole-expanding CFC’s …which have exacerbated LOCAL Warming. Ask NASA. AUTOMATIC, THERMOSTATIC LOCAL Cooling is the only function on GW Ozone Holes SERVE. Also, for geeks who missed the memo published in 9/2012 “Geophysical Journal” by Richard P. Allan: Satellites have OBSERVED net-NEGATIVE cloud reinforcement of radiative warming, (outside the Tropics) which means your 20-Century ASSumptions were not just wrong but diametrically opposed to Reality. I looked up, “Interglacial (melting) Era’s”. It seems we’re in one –called the Holocene Era– but it is ACTUALLY straddled by a (paleo-)current Ice Age of 2-3 million years! This 11,400-year-old “melting” Era describes what’s kept… Read more »
William928
Member
William928
October 31, 2013 11:37 PM

Superb cut and paste job. It fits most of your unintelligible post.

rwayford
Guest
rwayford
October 31, 2013 7:06 PM
I loved this Comment, found in “The Telegraph” (a conservative British online news outlet) 9/29/13 (the weekend IPCC-AR5 was SO desperately flogged) I’ve reprinted this from a Commenter entitled, “braqueish”: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz It really is time to reclaim the “environmental” movement from this disastrous dead-end. The over-emphasis of carbon dioxide as a “problem” has led to the extraordinary corruption of a well-meaning human enterprise. If you strip out the meme that human beings are a cancer upon the planet and that the vastness of our available resources are fragile and endangered there’s nothing left of this discourse. The surface temperature hasn’t increased and is more likely to drop dangerously than surge catastrophically. Cold kills a lot more people, plants… Read more »
David English
Guest
David English
October 31, 2013 2:09 PM

This website is rapidly losing credibility. Reputable science forums will not allow man-made climate change propaganda (from either side) anywhere near their forums. That is how ridiculous it is.
Stop with the politichate and get back to science.

Aqua4U
Member
October 31, 2013 11:12 PM

What a crock! ‘Reputable science forums…’ You must be reading your ‘scientific’ posts from the walls of public restrooms? What ‘reputable science forums’ are you referring to? Name a few… please. I want to back check your sources.

David English
Guest
David English
November 1, 2013 8:50 AM

Nothing to “huh?” about. As long as the facts cannot be agreed upon, and political stance guides one’s words, a science website should not engage in the climate change discussion.

Aqua4U
Member
October 31, 2013 11:42 PM

Just read through the comments below and had to laugh to keep from crying. The AGW crowd obviously don’t have a clue. They deny the MOUNTAINS of data pouring in about the ongoing and increasing effects of global warming. These insipid propagandists are obviously on someone’s payroll or otherwise seriously invested in the destruction of the biosphere… Sad ~@; P

David English
Guest
David English
November 1, 2013 9:00 AM

*This* is why any website trying to be scientifically legitimate should not engage in climate-speak.

Nian
Member
Nian
November 1, 2013 5:00 AM

It is too late to deal with the warming planet in the short term. We need strategies to deal with what will happen in the short term and strategies to deal with the long term.
Rule #1. Don’t shit in your own nest
Rule #2. Exterminate panic merchants and those that make a living from it.
Rule #3. Be skeptical but not stupid.
If all else fails, migrate to Mars.

hrizzo
Member
November 1, 2013 12:12 PM

So… the IPCC told us that the ice in both poles should decrease, and when it decreased in the Arctic it was “global warming”, but when it increases in the antarctic (as it has been since 1979 at least) it is “something else”. Of course, when it increases again in the Arctic (a 60% in 2013) there is no mention of it… and the same silence over the global temperatures stalled for the last 17 years (and falling since 2002).
Anthropogenic global warming (then global warming, then climate change, now climate disrupt) is just a fraudulent scam.

ITSRUF
Guest
ITSRUF
November 1, 2013 11:27 PM

Well said.

SquireB
Guest
SquireB
November 3, 2013 11:02 AM

It’s a revenue venue. Ponzi scheme. Ditto Rizzo!

GunillaBx
Guest
GunillaBx
November 1, 2013 1:05 PM

The US is the last outpost for AGW believers…

William Benoit
Guest
William Benoit
November 1, 2013 9:49 PM

Yes communism has snuffed it out all over the world

CKinTX
Member
November 1, 2013 1:51 PM

Agreed.
I, too, am disgusted with this site’s penchant to include politics into its content. Deal with fact and fact only, or lose my subscription.

William Benoit
Guest
William Benoit
November 1, 2013 9:30 PM

Bye

CKinTX
Member
November 2, 2013 12:44 PM

So, you have no interest in fact?

CKinTX
Member
November 1, 2013 1:57 PM

For those thinking that increased sea ice means we can relax about climate change, this humorous video explains the difference between land ice (glaciers) and sea ice (which is generated from snow, rainfall and fresh water).”

Since when is humor a substitute for facts?

What is wrong with this country, taking our knowledge from comedians?

No wonder we are doing so poorly in science compared to other nations.

“It’s definitely worth four minutes of your time.”

No, it’s not.

andrea silverthorne
Guest
andrea silverthorne
November 1, 2013 3:46 PM
Some one need to look at the possibility the reason the ice is growing in Antarctica is because the water is CO 2 saturated and at methane hydrate dissociation as the source of global warming. I believe global warming is being brought to us from the deep earth, radiant heat released to water, when methane hydrates dissociate, which they are doing in massive numbers both naturally and with help from man by the act of trying to harvest hydrates. Methane oxidizes to CO2. By 2010 methane had increased by 150% to CO2’s 35%. We should look at methane and other sources of added radiation to the earth as the source of both global warming and ultimately life threatening… Read more »
permanently_ad_hoc
Member
permanently_ad_hoc
November 1, 2013 9:23 PM
So you think that a site called Universe Today should not report on data coming from a satellite in orbit? And you think that everyone must agree to every theory that is published here? I guess that Universe Today better not publish anything concerning the Earth being round because there are still doubters, It had better stop reporting about galaxies being millions of light-years away because some believe the universe is only a few thousand years old. Science consists of proposing theories, and then gathering evidence that supports or refutes those theories. This web site, and its forum, discuss those theories, including occasionally climate change. The fact that climate change is politicized does not change the evidence, or… Read more »
David English
Guest
David English
November 2, 2013 8:25 AM

When conjecture and politicking is presented as scientific fact, science is betrayed. I’ve got no problem with people speaking their minds. I guess I’ve always seen UT as a reputable source of scientific info. Spouting AGW drivel will make UT nothing but another hack site.

William Benoit
Guest
William Benoit
November 1, 2013 9:31 PM

The facts are al gore is a scam artist

Dampe
Guest
Dampe
November 2, 2013 2:00 AM

What a load of nonsense. Take your greenwashing religion somewhere else.

David English
Guest
David English
November 2, 2013 7:03 PM

I like the smug vocal patterns/tones of the video. This must mean AGW is right. I can’t say how disturbed I am that UT allows this drivel. Everyone wants a clean planet, but when used as a weapon to enrich political friends and destroy political enemies, it is to the extreme of the “Wrong Side of History” spectrum. UT should follow the example of other reputable science rags and stay FAR away from the AGW argument.

SquireB
Guest
SquireB
November 3, 2013 11:00 AM

The idea that climate doesn’t change is ludicrous it has always changed. More to do with orbit than ANY other factor.

wpDiscuz